If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?

[Oofta]

BTW running Stonehell and other not very detailed OSR dungeons, I will indeed do the Dungeon World thing of giving them non-pre-existing stuff if they search the room and roll high. Eg I'll roll on Stonehell's Dungeon Dressing table, or the 5e PHB Trinkets table.

The assumption is that there is vastly more general junk lying around than is detailed and no one can find everything.

Interesting idea but I'm afraid my inventions may not quite fit the tone of the game. I'd probably have the group find underoos in Lord Soth's dresser or something similar.

 

[Charlaquin]

BTW running Stonehell and other not very detailed OSR dungeons, I will indeed do the Dungeon World thing of giving them non-pre-existing stuff if they search the room and roll high. Eg I'll roll on Stonehell's Dungeon Dressing table, or the 5e PHB Trinkets table.

The assumption is that there is vastly more general junk lying around than is detailed and no one can find everything.

I’ve started doing that when my players loot the bodies. It’s just always so boring when their fallen foes have nothing on them, or nothing but a handful of copper pieces. So I have some tables of random junk they long find in a downed foe’s pockets.

 

[Oofta]

I seem to be falling flat on my face in expressing what is just my opinion and way of doing things. What I thought at the time was just light-hearted sarcasm is upsetting people and I get too caught up in the argument/debate at times.

In any case, different people play for different reasons, I make no claim one way or another that my way is better. If I don't understand something, it's okay. It's difficult at best to really understand other people play style without actually being at the table. In addition, not every DM is going to work for every player. That's okay.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]: I will allow for an insight check on someone telling the truth, in general I won't ask for one. People only get vague answers for insight checks something like "they seem to be telling the truth" or maybe "they seem to be a bit nervous, but your not sure why".

So I never tell anyone with 100% certainty that someone is lying or telling the truth with an insight check. It's just a skill, not magic. Even if an NPC is using deception, the insight check won't be a guarantee more of a feeling that they're hiding something or their unconsciously glancing at someone or something nervously.

I always allow people to ask if they can do any skill check. I'll only tell them they can't if it should be obvious from the perspective of the PC that it's not possible. Superman may be able to leap buildings with a single bound, PCs by and large cannot. But otherwise they're always allowed to try even if it will fail because it reflects the effort. I don't care if I know the skill check won't alter the outcome. In the case of the OP it's not obvious from the perspective of the PC that the skill check will always have the same result.
[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], I pre-map almost nothing. I'm quite lazy and rarely even pre-draw maps lower than region or maybe a city down to the neighborhood level. I gave up on trying to figure out what my players were going to do ahead of time a long time ago. So I focus on organizations, conflicts, alliances, general environment and ecology. But I do set things in place that I think make sense. If the NPC should have traps, they probably will. Related to that, I almost never use complex traps unless they're powered by magic or maintained by undead/automatons because I find them silly.

While I frequently have multiple ways around obstacles or allow the players to come up with something I didn't think of, describing how you're doing what I deem a skill check is not one of them. Coming up with a different way to do the skill check (arcana to freeze the trap with Ray of Frost for example) is fine. Some people indicate that they will allow a good description to bypass just about any obstacle and feel like they were wasting time if it does not. That's just not my style of play, although they may get advantage on the check or inspiration.

Players are allowed to take 10 on mundane tasks like keeping an eye out for traps so there's never a need to ask for an investigation check every 10 feet. In the same way, if there is no time pressure and no setback on failure they may get an auto-success if the task is possible. They may also get an auto-success if their skill is high enough that a 1 succeeds.

 

[Bawylie]

Exactly.

Especially if there is chsnces to tie finds to interts of the PCs seeding stuff for later.

But you would be surprised how shocked some folks get at the mention of a GM having a chest pop up in a secret compartment because of an exceptional check sometimes in these forum discussions.

Generally I have a list of stuff that I want the players to find for the adventure. That’s the sort of stuff that I end up sneaking in when they search or loot or whatever. Clues, important keys, quest-specific stuff. Must-finds. Often I also keep a list of optional world-buildy secrets and random treasure that I also hold in reserve for schroedinger’s search. May-finds. But it’s not just search, sometimes that stuff gets in other ways too.

Same goes for encounters. I’ve got an adventure’s “random” encounters sort of built out. 3 or so that draw from the roster of baddies in the adventure. And 3 or so more that are from the “something happens” list I make for the adventure. These events are generally related/connected. I’ll generally alternate between lists when a random encounter is appropriate.

 

[iserith]

See, I want to say yes here, but I feel like you are trying to lead me somewhere with this question.

So, yeah, that seems to be the case. However, are you thinking of a use of the Insight skill that would work on a letter?

The only thing I could think of is analyzing word choice, which is frankly subtle enough that I generally don't try and pull that as a DM.

I know I was not leading you anywhere when I wrote this question, but unfortunately so many posts have been made since the one you're quoting that I cannot easily go back and reference it to see what this was about. As I have blocked some posters and been blocked by others, the forum bugs out when trying to click any links in the quote to go back to that post. The result is I don't recall what this was about and can't go back to look, sorry.

Yeah, except they don't fill it in.

Maybe they do some of the time, but other players just don't seem to have it in them. They know they want to do something, but they have no idea how to go about doing that. They don't know how to narrate a fail state involving the trap they aren't even sure exists.

You say this isn't my role, but it kind of is my role in the game. Narrative truth has been portrayed, the player chose an action, they failed at that action, I need to describe how they failed and the consequences thereof. Which means I need to tell the player what went wrong, even if what went wrong was ostensibly something the character did.

Barring some kind of inescapable personal hardship or challenge the player has, I think it's okay to expect and ask for players to fulfill their role and responsibility in the game. The DM should absolutely perform his or her role to narrate the result of the adventurers' actions - from the perspective of the environment. But stringing together enough words to describe what the character is doing and hopes to achieve is absolutely the player's role and responsibility. We have a shared goal in this game and each person plays a part. If the players are falling down on the job, they need to do better and rise to the occasion in my view. The only way to get better at something is to actually do it. A DM who performs the players' role for them is in no way helping those players or the game for that matter.

Interesting question.

For me there are at least two. The first is because I just don't know. The DM has set up a scenario, and I feel like there is something there I should be able to do, I can even narrow it down to a type of skill, but I just can't think of what the action is I want to perform. You can say all sorts of things about how that would never happen with a good GM, but it has happened to me and so it gets on the list.

I'm not sure what you mean here. How could you be aware enough to know a skill proficiency is applicable, but not aware enough to describe the application of said skill proficiency in the context of the scenario? Has the DM not adequately described the environment such that you have enough context to act? That doesn't seem the case since you say you can imagine a skill proficiency being applied. An example may be useful here if you have one.

Second big one is meta-knowledge. I'm bad about meta-knowledge sometimes, and there are times when I'll ask to roll to see if my character knows something I know. For example, I have a game in the Forgotten Realms I'm playing in as a Paladin. The DM had a plot involving something with one of the gods, can't remember what, but I knew a lot of lore about that god. So I asked, "Does my character know this or should I roll", because I know but I don't know if my character knows. Happens with monsters a lot too. As a DM, I know a lot of facts about monsters, but I don't know if my character would know those things.

The player determines what a character thinks. If you say your character thinks certain things about a god or a monster (or anything else), then that's what he or she thinks. No DM can gainsay you on this point, given the rules of this game. However, you know what they say about assuming. It is a good idea to verify your assumptions before you act upon them since the DM may have changed the lore on the god or the stat block on the monster. So an attempt to recall useful lore or deduce helpful information from available clues would be a good way to verify your assumptions before acting on them and potentially being roundly disappointed or even killed! Recalling lore or deducing information from available clues does not require a player to ask to make an ability check, just state a goal and approach as normal.

 

[iserith]

I’ve started doing that when my players loot the bodies. It’s just always so boring when their fallen foes have nothing on them, or nothing but a handful of copper pieces. So I have some tables of random junk they long find in a downed foe’s pockets.

I set the expectation in many D&D 5e campaigns that if you want loot, in general you need to explore for it - exploration challenges net you gold and magic items. Social interaction and combat challenges get you XP.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The bolded segment is where we fundamentally disagree. “I look for signs of traps, but don’t touch because touching might set it off” is what determines whether or not a roll is called for. Depending on the nature of the traps, looking without touching may or may not have a chance of succeeding in detecting signs of traps. It may or may not have a chance of failing to do so. It may or may not have a consequence for failing to do so. Unless it does have all three of those things, a roll will not be called for. So, I would argue that I very well might change the fact that a roll is called for. Now, whether a roll is called for or not, I will need to narrate the result, because that is my roll as the DM. But I will only need to take into account the result of a roll if I called for one, and I will only call for one if “I look for signs of traps, but don’t touch because touching might set it off” meets all three of the afformentioned criteria.

May or may not have a chance of succeeding
May or may not have a chance of failing
May or may not have consequences

And you need all three? First, my pendantry side wants to point out that one and two are the exact same thing. If something has a chance at success, by definition it has a chance of failure.

So, let us look to consequences. This gets muddy.

See, the consequence of failing to know something is to not know it. Something might happen because you do not know something, but that is not a direct consequence of the failed roll, the consequence of the failed roll is not having access to the knowledge.

Now, this only applies if the knowledge is useful. Knowing why the Lady's heraldry contains a rose with five petals may or may not be useful, depending on the campaign. But, if it is useful, and a player asks to roll knowledge on that family's history. Well, they may or may not know the story, but the only consequence of failure is not having potentially useful information.

Is that lack of information enough of a consequence for you to call for a roll? Maybe, I can't say. But, is giving them useful information with no roll, just because a failed roll only means they don't know make sense either?


It isn't that I don't use this philosophy from time to time. If a group wants to break down a door, and there is no time limit or major consequence to them breaking down the door, then they will not fail at breaking down the door eventually. The roll does tell me how long it took though, and the players might not know there is no consequence to their roll, so we might roll and a low number just means they struggle through it, but eventually succeed. After all, there is no point in having them keep rolling until they succeed, but that doesn't mean that I need specific consequences in mind for every roll either.

Are you asking how I would adjudicate that action like that as a DM, or for me to describe an approach to sneaking past a guard as a player?

I think I'm curious about your approach as a player. Somehow, there seems to be a problem with how rolls are handled at some of our tables, and people keep insisting that they describe actions so fully that there is no chance of failure.

That somehow, given the scenario, a player can describe their actions in such detail that no roll is needed, because no failure is possible. And not in rare cases, such as wiping a poisoned handle and discovering a poison oil, but that it is more common for them to have scenarios that cannot possibly fail instead of ones that are uncertain.

How?

You’re putting the cart before the horse by assuming that at some point dice will be rolled, without first taking into account what the PC is doing. Maybe dice will be rolled. But maybe they won’t need to be. Depends on if the approach has a chance of succeeding in the goal, a chance of failing in the goal, and a consequence for failing in the goal.

So my only flaw in my approach is assuming there will be more uncertainty than certainty? That, in a discussion about how to handle skills, I am assuming that the dice will be rolled and a skill used instead of assuming that the approach given to me will be so certain of victory that no roll is needed?

That isn't putting the cart before the horse, that is splitting hairs.

We’re going to have to agree to disagree here. I think directly stating what characters other than the POV character are feeling is poor writing. I’d prefer a description of the qualities of the scream that might lead me to conclude that the screamer is terrified. Perhaps “a shrill, trembling scream” or “a strangled squeak that might have began as a scream” or “a scream that could wake the dead.”

Yeah, agree to disagree. I've seen a lot of novels get so verbose in trying to describe things that it takes away from the narrative. The fact that the lady was frightened isn't important enough to spend more words on, how people react and the events that unfold are far more important and if you have every emotional reaction take 7-10 words it is likely to get bogged down.

I know I was not leading you anywhere when I wrote this question, but unfortunately so many posts have been made since the one you're quoting that I cannot easily go back and reference it to see what this was about. As I have blocked some posters and been blocked by others, the forum bugs out when trying to click any links in the quote to go back to that post. The result is I don't recall what this was about and can't go back to look, sorry.

Yeah, I have problems catching where things are as well. Takes me a few minutes of scrolling to find my last post and just go from there.

This particular thing was about Insighting written letters, if that jogs your memory.

Barring some kind of inescapable personal hardship or challenge the player has, I think it's okay to expect and ask for players to fulfill their role and responsibility in the game. The DM should absolutely perform his or her role to narrate the result of the adventurers' actions - from the perspective of the environment. But stringing together enough words to describe what the character is doing and hopes to achieve is absolutely the player's role and responsibility. We have a shared goal in this game and each person plays a part. If the players are falling down on the job, they need to do better and rise to the occasion in my view. The only way to get better at something is to actually do it. A DM who performs the players' role for them is in no way helping those players or the game for that matter.

I'm not going to disagree exactly, but I'm also not their babysitter. Sometimes I don't feel like devoting 2 to 4 minutes slowly walking them through the exercise of coming up with a plan, especially since that invites other players to chime in with what they would do and end up just running those actions for that player.

It's never ideal, but I also don't have this strict line in the sand about "player responsibility" and "GM responsibility" that some of you seem to have, so it doesn't really bother me overly much, beyond wishing for better players.

I'm not sure what you mean here. How could you be aware enough to know a skill proficiency is applicable, but not aware enough to describe the application of said skill proficiency in the context of the scenario? Has the DM not adequately described the environment such that you have enough context to act? That doesn't seem the case since you say you can imagine a skill proficiency being applied. An example may be useful here if you have one.

Ugh, I wish I could think of a really good example of this.

It mostly happens when I'm tired, or having an off day, so part of that is on me. And rarely any of the physical skills, those have clear actions behind them that I can picture.

Insight and Investigation stuff? Knowledge checks? It happens when I know the DM is hinting at something, something that should be obvious, but I'm just not seeing it or understanding the significance of it. And I can usually narrow it down to 2 or 3 skills, and I ask if I could roll one of the list to see if I can break past whatever it is I'm not getting.

The player determines what a character thinks. If you say your character thinks certain things about a god or a monster (or anything else), then that's what he or she thinks. No DM can gainsay you on this point, given the rules of this game. However, you know what they say about assuming. It is a good idea to verify your assumptions before you act upon them since the DM may have changed the lore on the god or the stat block on the monster. So an attempt to recall useful lore or deduce helpful information from available clues would be a good way to verify your assumptions before acting on them and potentially being roundly disappointed or even killed! Recalling lore or deducing information from available clues does not require a player to ask to make an ability check, just state a goal and approach as normal.

Very few people I play under bother homebrewing monsters to the point that I'd be remiss in making assumptions.

But there are two things I'm seeing here.

1) How is asking to recall lore not a asking to roll a check? Sure, I, as a DM, have sometimes told people after asking that there is no need to roll, because it makes perfect sense they would know the thing, but it is the same question. I don't imagine most DM's would be much more or less likely to give you the information if you prettied up your question by asking "Does my character know what a Black Pudding is?" versus "Can I roll Arcana to see if my character knows what a Black Pudding is?"

You are talking about a portion of a percentage difference I think, and that isn't enough to raise a fuss over.

2) Assuming my character can know everything I know about a world and setting is a dangerous thing. I know A LOT more than most of the people who DM for me, and most of the other players. Usually, they don't mind me acting on my knowledge, but it is polite for me to ask them and get their permission. Even if it is only to assure them on some level that their plans weren't too simplistic, it was simply that I, as a player, know far too much about the game and how it works.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So, let us look to consequences. This gets muddy.

See, the consequence of failing to know something is to not know it. Something might happen because you do not know something, but that is not a direct consequence of the failed roll, the consequence of the failed roll is not having access to the knowledge.

Now, this only applies if the knowledge is useful. Knowing why the Lady's heraldry contains a rose with five petals may or may not be useful, depending on the campaign. But, if it is useful, and a player asks to roll knowledge on that family's history. Well, they may or may not know the story, but the only consequence of failure is not having potentially useful information.

Is that lack of information enough of a consequence for you to call for a roll? Maybe, I can't say. But, is giving them useful information with no roll, just because a failed roll only means they don't know make sense either?

That was a really long post, but I'm only going to address the above.

When some of us talk about consequences we mean, pretty much by definition "consequences worse than having done nothing at all." In other words: risk.

The consequences you are talking about (not knowing the information) are the same whether you fail or don't try, so that's not really a consequence.

And the reason (or one of the reasons) consequences are important is because you...or we, anyway...want rolling dice to be a last resort. When you can't solve the problem, you put yourself in the hands of fate.

Example consequences:
- If you fail at finding a trap, it goes off (or perhaps you end up holding the trigger down and are stuck; something of that nature)
- If you fail at disarming a trap, it goes off and you have disadvantage on the saving throw
- If you fail at "lie detection" (whoo boy) the subject knows you don't believe them. Or maybe you get information that's 100% opposite of the truth.
- If you fail at jumping the chasm...well, that one is self explanatory
- If you fail at picking pockets, the subject catches you
- If you fail at tracking quarry, you end up following the wrong spoor and wasting time. Or worse.

Actually, let me expand on that last one. This isn't, "We will try to track the orcs." "Okay roll." It's more like: "We will try to track the orcs." "Ok, you follow them for about an hour, until you get to a place that the tracks are muddled, and some go west toward a hill and some go north toward the river valley. What do you do?" "Ummm...jeez I guess I'l just try to figure out which set of tracks looks like it might have a female human among them. I'm proficient in Survival..." "Ok, I'm going to need a Survival roll, then."

In all of those cases the consequence of failure leaves you in a worse state than before the roll. Which, besides encouraging solutions that don't require rolls, also limits "can I roll too?" syndrome.

Standard Disclaimer
I'm not saying you have to play this way, or that if you don't you are having badwrongfun. Just trying to explain what some of us mean when we talk about meaningful consequences for failure, and the game state changing after a roll.

 

[pemerton]

the consequence of failing to know something is to not know it. Something might happen because you do not know something, but that is not a direct consequence of the failed roll, the consequence of the failed roll is not having access to the knowledge.

To add to what [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] already said: the consequences for failing a knowledge/lore roll can be the same sort of thing as failing a search roll, namely, the character confirms the truth of something that s/he'd rather be false. (See eg my post not far upthread where I talk about the PC learning that his brother was evil before being possessed by a balrog.)

 

[Charlaquin]

May or may not have a chance of succeeding
May or may not have a chance of failing
May or may not have consequences

And you need all three? First, my pendantry side wants to point out that one and two are the exact same thing. If something has a chance at success, by definition it has a chance of failure.

As long a we’re being pedantic, a 100% chance of success is, by definition, a chance of success. Pedantry aside, I do not call for a roll when the action could not succeed in bringing about the goal, nor when the action could not fail to bring about the goal.

So, let us look to consequences. This gets muddy.

See, the consequence of failing to know something is to not know it. Something might happen because you do not know something, but that is not a direct consequence of the failed roll, the consequence of the failed roll is not having access to the knowledge.

Now, this only applies if the knowledge is useful. Knowing why the Lady's heraldry contains a rose with five petals may or may not be useful, depending on the campaign. But, if it is useful, and a player asks to roll knowledge on that family's history. Well, they may or may not know the story, but the only consequence of failure is not having potentially useful information.

Is that lack of information enough of a consequence for you to call for a roll?

No. It is not a direct consequence of failing.

But, is giving them useful information with no roll, just because a failed roll only means they don't know make sense either?

Yes. Provided the player has a reasonable approach to the goal of obtaining the information in question, then they gain it.

It isn't that I don't use this philosophy from time to time. If a group wants to break down a door, and there is no time limit or major consequence to them breaking down the door, then they will not fail at breaking down the door eventually. The roll does tell me how long it took though, and the players might not know there is no consequence to their roll, so we might roll and a low number just means they struggle through it, but eventually succeed. After all, there is no point in having them keep rolling until they succeed, but that doesn't mean that I need specific consequences in mind for every roll either.

If how long it took them to get through the door matters, then the time it takes is the consequence of failure. If it doesn’t matter, why bother rolling the die to find out how long it took?

I think I'm curious about your approach as a player. Somehow, there seems to be a problem with how rolls are handled at some of our tables, and people keep insisting that they describe actions so fully that there is no chance of failure.

That somehow, given the scenario, a player can describe their actions in such detail that no roll is needed, because no failure is possible. And not in rare cases, such as wiping a poisoned handle and discovering a poison oil, but that it is more common for them to have scenarios that cannot possibly fail instead of ones that are uncertain.

How?

Detailed description isn’t the key to eliminating the possibility of failure. Choosing the right approach to accomplish your goal is. If my goal is to open an unlocked door, and my approach is to turn the handle and pull it open, there’s no possibility of failure and therefore no roll. If my approach is to yell at it to open, there is no possibility of success and therefore no roll. If my approach is to smash it with a warhammer, there is a possibility of success, and a possibility of failure, but if there is no time constraint there is no consequence for failure so we skip the roll and say I eventually succeed. If time is constrained, then and only then do we roll to see how long it takes.

So my only flaw in my approach is assuming there will be more uncertainty than certainty? That, in a discussion about how to handle skills, I am assuming that the dice will be rolled and a skill used instead of assuming that the approach given to me will be so certain of victory that no roll is needed?

That isn't putting the cart before the horse, that is splitting hairs.

No. The flaw in your approach is in deciding that your obstacle must be resolved by way of a check, and closed yourself off to other possibilities. You’re treating checks as things that exist in their own right, instead of as the means by which you determine the success or failure of actions with uncertain outcomes.